WOMEN’S PROPERTY AND INHERITANCE RIGHTS IN INDIA: FROM LEGAL REFORMS TO SOCIAL REALITY

-Anushka Saha

ABSTRACT

Legislative changes, judicial activism and the transformation of the Indian Constitution have improved women’s rights to ownership and inheritance of property. Women have progressed from having limited rights to full ownership rights of property. The position of women has been significantly improved with the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956¹ and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 ² , and important Supreme Court judgments like V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy³, Mary Roy v. State of Kerala⁴ and C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil⁵ and Rakesh Sharma⁶.

This article studies the changes in property and inheritance rights of women in India and analyzes the judicial precedents. It focuses on the gap between equality in law and its embodiment in the real world. Among other things, the 2005 amendment recognized daughters as coparceners and asserted their equal rights with sons.

INTRODUCTION

Women’s economic independence and equality and their right to property and inheritance are interrelated. In India, these rights have historically been under the purview of personal laws, custom and patriarchy. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 made some progress towards women’s rights to property, but this Act, in fact, upheld the unequal coparcenary system. An important amendment of the Hindu Succession Act, 2005, gave daughters the right to be coparceners, similar to sons. Through a number of their rulings, the Supreme Court has also supported gender equality, but the pressure of society, family settlements, lack of awareness, and the reluctance to litigate, including a preference for a family settlement, mean that women often remain deprived of these rights.

THE HISTORICAL POSITION OF WOMEN

Traditionally, within Hindustani families, sons received significantly more rights to family inheritance than daughters. According to the Mitakshara system, a coparcenary could only include males. Although some daughters did inherit, they did not inherit as sons would in a coparcenary property. The Hindu Succession Act of 1956 was instrumental in dealing with the lacunae in codification and modernization of the system of Hindu intestate succession.

One of the significant articles was Article 14, which said a Hindu woman will have sole possession of her property provided those conditions are stated in Article 14(1). It was a new provision that a woman had the right to possession but that right was still restrained to a limited estate. The 1956 Act did not completely carry out equality between sons and daughters on coparcenary property. In a Mitakshara joint family, the estate of a daughter was not comparable to that of a son. This disparity was becoming harder and harder to accept with the principle of equality enshrined in the constitution.

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF WOMEN’S PROPERTY RIGHTS

There are constitutional amendments to remove discriminatory laws relating to properties. Article 14 says that all persons must be treated equally, and be afforded the equal protection of the law. Furthermore, Article 15 states that the State cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. The State also has the right to take affirmative action in respect of women and children as provided in Article 15(3). Then dignity and participation in social and economic life will constitute the life and personal liberty ensured under Article 21 of the Constitution.

Ownership gives women economic security and negotiating power within their families, and is therefore particularly relevant here. In C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil (1996) 8 SCC 525⁷, the Supreme Court related women’s right to the ownership and inheritance of property to the principal of equality, dignity, and economic independence. The Court corrected that the elimination of gender discrimination in property framework is part of the principle of equality and dignity for women. Therefore, the concern for women’s right to inheritance is concerned with the right to material equality in the family.

SECTION 14 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT AND THE TRANSFORMATION OF WOMEN’S OWNERSHIP

Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act did something for the first time. Until then, there were no general provisions concerning female succession to property. In Section 14 (1), it is stated that rather than being a limited owner, a Hindu woman can be the full owner of her property. This is an issue that the Supreme Court must address. In V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (1977) 3 SCC 99⁸, it is said that the Court has taken a wide view on the provisions of Section 14 (1) of the Act, especially the right, interest or a claim to maintenance, arising to a Hindu woman under a personal law. It is important to note that the interest may become absolute in the fullness of time. Thus, this judgment established the right to property of women independently and in their own right, rather than in a dependent or derivative sense.

The Supreme Court has appreciated this judgment in Tulasamma, and many views have followed that that a Hindu woman’s right to property cannot be deemed to be a grant or an act of benevolence or from a family point of view, or from the standpoint of family rights.

THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2005

The 2005 amendment to Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005⁹ stated that daughters are coparceners by birth with the same rights and liabilities as sons. On partition, daughters have the right to a share in coparcenary property. This amendment fills in the gaps in the Hindu law of succession by providing that a daughter does not lose her rights to her family property because of marriage. The reform was borne out of the concern for the discrimination against women in right to property raised by the Law Commission of India, in its 174th Report (2000)¹⁰.

JUDICIAL RESOLUTION: VINEETA SHARMA V. RAKESH SHARMA

Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1¹¹ is a significant Supreme Court decision that clarifies daughters’ right to coparcenary. This decision settled the differences caused by Prakash and Phulavati¹², and Danamma and Amar¹³, and said that a daughter is always a coparcener, even if her father was alive or not, on 9 September 2005. The court said that the intent behind the 2005 amendment was to provide equal coparcenary rights to daughters and sons.

DANAMMA AND PRAKASH: THE JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENT BEFORE VINEETA SHARMA

To understand Vineeta Sharma¹⁴, course analysis of relevant laws is extremely important. The Supreme Court concluded that the newly amended Section 6 was to take effect from the date of the amendment in Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36¹⁵, However, in Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343¹⁶, the co-parcenery rights were conferred to the daughters despite the fact that their father died in 2001, which preceded the amendment.

This created an issue for Prakash When the two cases of Prakash¹⁷ and Danamma were brought before the Bench of three Judges in Sharma, it was concluded that Sharma was the only and primary case interpreter of Section 6. The later Supreme Court mentioned both the cases with their respective resolutions.

INHERITANCE RIGHTS OF WOMEN BEYOND COPARCENARY PROPERTY

A woman also has rights to property beyond coparcenary. The Succession of a Hindu Woman’s Property is outlined in sections 15 (1) and 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act. In Arunachala Gounder v. Ponnusamy (2022), the Supreme Court held that daughters also have a right to succession to self-acquired property. The decision of the court explains the succession to property for Hindu women. The court states that self-acquired property as a coparcener or joint family property, both are heritable by women.

MARY ROY AND EQUALITY IN CHRISTIAN SUCCESSION

Women’s inheritance rights extend beyond the Hindu personal law. An example is Mary Roy v State of Kerala, (1986) 2 SCC 209¹⁸, where the Supreme Court of India was called upon to examine the discriminatory succession laws of some of the Christians in the former state of Travancore. The Travancore Christian Succession Act¹⁹, in its provision of rights to daughters, was far less than that of the sons, and rights of widows in general were restricted.

The Supreme Court held that with effect from the challenges to the ancient system of succession, the Indian Succession Act, 1925²⁰, came to apply and serve, thus overriding the legacy of the discriminatory provisions of the system of succession. With this case, Mary Roy ²¹, has changed the scenario on the rights of women to inherit in India. It shows the power of judicial review and statutory interpretation to dismantle discriminatory provisions of the personal law statutes, even though they have been practiced for a long time.

FROM LEGAL RIGHTS TO SOCIAL REALITY

In some cases, women’s property rights don’t align with their legal rights. There are often societal norms and attitudes including family, social customs, the dowry system, and marriage that result in daughters failing to exercise their right of inheritance. This is more pronounced in rural areas where land is a major economic resource. Also, the data at the household level on land ownership is often incomplete, and therefore, may not capture ownership by women.

While women’s rights are legally recognized, their names may not appear on land records and/or revenue documents, making it impossible for them to exercise their rights. Women’s names may not be appears on revenue documents, title records or records of partition, hindering them from exercising their rights.

THE SOCIAL BARRIERS TO ENFORCEMENT

The existence of gaps between law and practice is due to several interrelated problems. A significant number of women are still unaware of their legal rights. Many women are notaware that daughters are bare di coparceners. Family pressures and social customs dissuade womenfromclaiming their right toproperty. Family members may conte Pursuing a case against family members, in particular male relatives, may be perceived as a dishonoring the family. Informaland relinquishment is rampant.

Some women are coerced to sign legal documents that either release them or settle family issues without understanding the consequences. Women maintain high dependency levels, and the absence of an economic source might prevent her from undertaking a drawn-out litigation of property. Some legal barriers tend to make formal ownership not fully essential. To a large extent, people without legal representation suffer a lot while executing mutation, registration, partition and recording of the revenue.

Though the laws of the land have been gender neutral, social discrimination and patriarchal norms have combined together to defeat the purpose of gender equality and justice in legal proceedings.

THE IMPORTANCE OF DOCUMENTATION AND LEGAL AWARENESS-

Post-2005, legal documents are of critical importance. To assert her rights, a daughter should look at the title, revenue, and family partition records, as well wills, registered deeds, and other documents related to the property.

In Vineeta Sharma²², the Supreme Court further added that a statutory right of a daughter must not disturb a genuine transaction or a partition, which are protected under stipulated statutory provisions. The balance that the law seeks to achieve is the daughter’s right to equality versus the certainty of finality of transactions, which means that the daughter must be legally literate. Women must be given the right to legal literacy so they are able to assert their right to inheritance and get it formalized and enforceable.

THE CONTINUING ROLE OF COURTS AND LAW REFORM-

The development of women’s right to property in India demonstrates the collaboration of Parliament, Law Commission and the Supreme Court. In its numerous reports, the Law Commission addressed women’s rights to property and amendments to the Hindu Succession Act²³. In its reports relating to succession, the Law Commission has published Reports on women’s property rights and further amendments to the Act. On the other hand, the Supreme Court has interpreted succession law broadly so as to bring greater precision to the conceptualization of equality in the Constitution. The Court has broadly and progressively addressed women’s right to property within the framework of the right to equality and right to dignity enshrined in the Constitution from Tulasamma²⁴ to Mary Roy ²⁵ to Vineeta Sharma²⁶ . However, judicial decisions are not adequate to bring about a change in social behavior. It is necessary to effect the ‘reforms in property legislation’ at the family, community, registration and revenue Department levels.

CONCLUSION

Reporting on the status of women’s property rights in India would show that, while the law has changed to provide women with the status of equality, there is a large gap between legal and societal equality. Judgments have revolutionized the rights of women, while the Hindu Succession Act, 1956²⁷ has been amended in 2005. Social custom keeps ownership from actualizing. There are many restrictions on ownership due to economic dependence, low awareness and poor implementation. Legal awareness, improved record-keeping, better legal services, better administration, and social acceptance of daughters as landowners are all required for the future. Without legal measures, women cannot exercise the right to equal ownership without breaking the.

REFERENCES-

1. The Hindu Succession Act, No. 30 of 1956 India Code.
   https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/1713/1/AAA1956suc 30.pdf
2. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act No. 39 of 2005, India Code.
   https://www.indiacode.nic.in/repealedfileopen?rfilename=A2005-39.pdf
3. The Indian Succession Act No. 39 of 1925, India Code. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/19051/1/indian_succession_act_1 925.pdf

FOOTNOTES

1. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ↩︎
2. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 ↩︎
3. V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (1977) 3 SCC 99 ↩︎
4. Mary Roy v State of Kerala, (1986) 2 SCC 209 ↩︎
5. C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil (1996) 8 SCC 525 ↩︎
6. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 ↩︎
7. C. Masilamani Mudaliar v. Idol of Sri Swaminathaswami Thirukoil (1996) 8 SCC 525 ↩︎
8. V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (1977) 3 SCC 99 ↩︎
9. The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 ↩︎
10. Law Commission of India, in its 174th Report (2000) ↩︎
11. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 ↩︎
12. Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36 ↩︎
13. Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343 ↩︎
14. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 ↩︎
15. Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36 ↩︎
16. Danamma @ Suman Surpur v. Amar (2018) 3 SCC 343 ↩︎
17. Prakash v. Phulavati (2016) 2 SCC 36 ↩︎
18. Mary Roy v State of Kerala, (1986) 2 SCC 209 ↩︎
19. The Travancore Christian Succession Act 1916 ↩︎
20. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 ↩︎
21. Mary Roy v State of Kerala, (1986) 2 SCC 209 ↩︎
22. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 ↩︎
23. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 ↩︎
24. V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy (1977) 3 SCC 99 ↩︎
25. Mary Roy v State of Kerala, (1986) 2 SCC 209 ↩︎
26. Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1 ↩︎
27. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ↩︎